2 ms·
but that's not what the article says. it says: > Setting up our infrastructure to do that is technically straightforward: we need to add more servers to handl
by zzzeek 14y ago
but that's not what the article says. it says:
> Setting up our infrastructure to do that is technically straightforward: we need to add more servers to handle a lot of additional traffic on the front end, before people get to content.
as a description of the problem, the above seems kind of nonsensical. Which suggests that even this blogger is in fact, guessing, and then worse just passing it off as an explanation, and then we're back to NASA looking kind of bad here.
- px1999 14y agoMy best guess is that they're trying to say that whatever www runs off looks at the host header, and that they'd need to do some additional work in either 301ing requests, or set up a reverse proxy. In either of these cases, yeah, the headline is a little sensationalist. Based off the wording, it sounds like they're responding to "why can't I browse http://nasa.gov/x http://nasa.gov/x without the www?" rather than "why doesn't http://nasa.gov/x http://nasa.gov/x take me to the NASA website?", but as they're a government agency, it's quite possible that there's so much bureaucracy / cost involved that it legitimately isn't even worth it to add a url-redirect server somewhere.